Legal Research
Cases
Racing NSW v Goode

Racing NSW v Goode

Case [2023] NSWPICPD 43 28 July 2023

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	RACING NSW V GOODE [2023] NSWPICPD 43
APPELLANT:	Racing NSW
RESPONDENT:	Paul Goode
INSURER:	Self-insured
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W6404/21
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	28 July 2023
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 10 June 2022 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – section 289A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – whether the Commission may deal with a previously unnotified Anshun estoppel argument – principles in Mateus v Zodune Pty Ltd t/as Tempo Cleaning Services [2007] NSWWCCPD 227 considered and applied – whether claims for medical or related treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 are estopped by failure to claim in earlier proceedings -Geary v UPS Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPICPD 47; Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; 147 CLR 589; Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 231; Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Miller & Anor (No 5) [2020] NSWWCCPD 38 and Miller v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 10) [2022] NSWCA 190 applied and considered
HEARING:	18 July 2023
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr D Baran, counsel
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Respondent:
Ms E Grotte, counsel
Santone Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Mr J Wynyard
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	10 June 2022

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The respondent worker, Mr Paul Goode, was born in the United Kingdom. The respondent left school at the age of 16 to become a qualified horse jockey and worked as a jockey for 20 years. In 2003 the respondent migrated to Australia where he continued to work as a jockey.
On 29 June 2009 the respondent suffered a serious accident in a horse race. In the subject accident, the respondent suffered a complete spinal cord injury and as a consequence of this injury became a paraplegic. The respondent’s diagnosis is paraplegia at the T4 level. The respondent also suffered a number of other injuries in this accident including a fracture of his C2 vertebrae, multiple fractures of his discs from T4 to T7, fractured ribs, a left rotator cuff injury and pulmonary contusions to his lungs.
The respondent is permanently confined to a wheelchair and requires assistance in daily living as well as ongoing medical care.
The appellant has accepted liability for these injuries.
The respondent signed a Complying Agreement pursuant to s 66A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 21 October 2010. By virtue of this agreement, the appellant agreed to pay the respondent s 66 benefits in the sum of $220,000 (85% WPI) and s 67 benefits in the sum of $50,000.[1]
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute dated 10 December 2021 (ARD), p 10.
On 16 June 2012, the respondent and his wife returned to live in the United Kingdom. This was because of a desire and need for the respondent to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Racing NSW v Goode

Details

AGLC: Racing NSW v Goode [2023] NSWPICPD 43
Case: [2023] NSWPICPD 43
Decision Date: 28 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Racing NSW v Goode, the Workers Compensation Commission was tasked with addressing a dispute involving the applicability of an Anshun estoppel to claims for medical and related treatment expenses. The dispute arose after the claimant, Mr Goode, sought compensation for medical expenses that were not raised in prior proceedings. The Commission was required to determine whether the Anshun estoppel principle precluded Mr Goode from now claiming these expenses.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had the authority to entertain an Anshun estoppel argument that had not been previously notified. The court examined the principles established in cases such as Mateus v Zodune Pty Ltd t/as Tempo Cleaning Services and considered their relevance to the current dispute. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether claims for medical or related treatment expenses, as provided for under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, could be subject to estoppel by the failure to claim them in earlier proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the Commission closely analysed the precedent set by cases such as Geary v UPS Pty Ltd, Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd, Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd, and Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Miller. The Commission found that the principles of Anshun estoppel, which prevent a party from asserting a claim inconsistent with a previous representation, could apply to claims for medical expenses. However, the court also acknowledged the unique considerations involved in workers compensation claims and the need to balance fairness with the established legal principles.

Ultimately, the Commission ruled that the Anshun estoppel did apply in this case, barring Mr Goode from claiming the medical expenses that were not previously raised. This decision underscores the importance of properly notifying all claims in initial proceedings to avoid estoppel and highlights the Commission's adherence to established legal principles in workers compensation matters.

Orders